Form 1 suppresaor legal questions

File: image.jpg (50KB, 374x503px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 374x503px

>>34244789

>>34244789
Bump out of interest. I know nothing, but:

>have legal surpressor
>disassemble it for cleaning
>assemble it afterwards
>...
>did you just build a surpressor without paying a tax stamp?
>guess' i have to ventilate your dog now.

Is this true? Bullshit? Some kind of grey zone?

>>34244789
It's been a while from the last time I looked into it but generally owning parts to a suppressor is the same as owning a complete one, it's the reason company's can't just sell 80 percent silencers or parts to it. So it's very likely that you could get in trouble by having two sets of baffles. What if you made a set of baffles for the 45 and then used some kind of replaceable rubber wipes that you could install so that you could shoot 22 out of the same suppressor.

>>34244859
Hey, you know how the ATF classified wipes as suppressor parts because they reduced noise?
Well what about ablative materials like water?
I mean a wet Suppressors run quieter, so does that mean every time I spray water into a suppressor I'm illegally manufacturing suppressor parts?

LMAO how much longer until the ATF classifies water as Suppressors(suppressor parts and Suppressors are pretty the same under the 1986 FOPA).

>>34244920
But I have two Suppressors(will) and the baffles are simply interchangeable.
It's not extra parts it's the same parts but they can be used in both Suppressors.

>>34244859
No i doubt that could count as building a silencer as every part of the silencer is the silencer, now a grey zone would be if you slowly replaced every part of a silencer over time. Ex: replace baffles one tme then the tube the next, have you then created a new suppressor or just rebuilt the same one

>>34244937
What do you think about my idea of the ATF classifying water a suppressor parts like they did with wipes?
Too ridiculous even for them?

>>34244931
Well I'm not the atf but I imagine interchangeable parts are mentioned somewhere in all the legal talk, really I would just do it and as long as your not waving around what your doing don't worry about it

>>34244953
Not from what I've seen.
What about the caliber of the baffles?

>>34244949
It could happen, I know people shoot into pillows to muffle noise, I'm sure the atf has a ruling regarding that and I imagine it would be the same as water, although I think as far as spraying water into a silencer is concerned there's no regulation just because it's not a actual modification

>>34244966
Baffles for multiple calibers exist but really it's just a larger hole size that anything smaller can be shot through, so having two sets would be the same as two suppressors

>>34244972
Isn't it pretty the same as wipes? I mean a wipe doesn't modify the suppressor and neither does water.

I hope they fucking do it.
Seriously.
It would redpill a lot of normie gun owners and non gun owners if given a lot of media attention.

>>34244937
Is there not a serial number on suppressors? As long as you dont replace the serialized part, how would they know.

>>34244991
Absolutely it would be more helpful to us then anything but as for wipes If I'm understanding correctly it was outlawed because or people making solvent traps and then shooting a hole through it thus just a tube with a wipe on the end when we all know what it really is

>>34244990
Could I make a 22 can with let's say 12 baffles(number of afford that fit inside the can) and have 4 be 22 4 308 and 4 45?
And a second one with 6 baffles with 3 being 308 and 3 45?
Again 2 Suppressors and two form 1s, baffles can interchange and both are 22 caliber on the form.

>>34245014
You mean just a tube with a wipe at the end?
Wouldn't really work that well and the wipe would just fly out at the end.
If that's the case then suppressor manufacturers would still include multiple spare wipes

>>34245007
There might be serial numbers on commercial ones yes, but the way the law is worded any part of a suppressor is a suppressor, but your right there wouldn't be any way for then to know unless you would caught with multiple suppressor parts

>>34245020
That might be legal because as soon as you shoot 308 through those 22 wipes they became 308 wipes

>>34245052
There's no wipes, these are stainless steel baffles with drilled holes.

>>34244921
How do you go about rebuilding a supressor now?

>>34244789
you just get a suppressor in .45 and use it on all your funs

>>34244789
Yes and Yes. Experimenting (or testing) is completely legal as long as you can return it to the stats on the form 1.

>>34245042
>>34245007
>>34244937
It depends on how you manufacture the suppressor. If it's monolithic (machined from one piece of material or permanently welded), the whole thing is legally a suppressor. If you stack the internal parts inside a housing (tube), you can make the housing/container the legal suppressor by engraving a serial number on it. When I used to manufacture them, customers would send us damaged or worn out suppressors for repair all the time. We would remove the welds on both ends, push the baffles out, figure out the cause of the damage for warranty reasons, and then replace the internals with a new stack. Be advised that the company I worked for had a legal expert whose job was specifically to deal with the ATF and make sure we were 100% compliant. There were no problems with the system we used as far as I know.

Wow the atf seems like a bunch of fags.

File: RR.jpg (125KB, 960x627px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 960x627px

>>34246375
Also murderers

>>34244789
Caliber is the bore.

List it at the largest bore.


If you have questions, call the tech branch or nfa branch

>>34246677
badass

>>34244789
I'd have to wonder why you'd want to swap baffles between two suppressor tubes. What's the point? Probably obvious... but I'm not in much of a puzzling mood I guess. I mean, if you have a .22" and a .45" suppressor complete with baffles, what would be the point in swapping back and forth?

Seems you're getting more thorough answers on silencertalk anyway, but good luck resolving whatever the point is with this question.

Oh, and boring out a .22" suppressor to a larger size is pretty much a sure thing to make suppression less efficient, as in louder.

>>34244789
Do whatever you want with the internals dude.
Whatever the serialized part is considered the can
That's why companies can rebuild your suppressor
ATF is going to check into it

>>34248496
Isn't going to check into it*
Companies sell different end caps
So you can choke down a .45 to a small caliber
Baffles can be replaced without a tax stamp...
The only thing that's not replaceable is the serialized portion!

>>34248529
Provided the entity performing the baffle replacement is a 'manufacturer' with appropriate paperwork on file with the BATF to allow them that legal privilege. An individual can not replace any part of a suppressor without risking severe penalties. Not saying that's fair, just how the laws work these days. Check your facts before offering advice.

>>34248589
>Paranoia
If you're law-abiding, shit would never happen

>>34248632
True that. Heck, as a non-American from up North I can't have a suppressor legally anyway. Doesn't mean I don't. Just that I behave myself otherwise, so there's no reason ever to appear on official radar. I was just pointing out the legal status, not offering advice.

>>34244789
Soon, friend. Soon.